Will the government's reforms be enough to tackle the court crisis?
- Beth Mooney
- 3 hours ago
- 5 min read
Insights Perspective
Beth Mooney, Head of Research
Wednesday 3rd December 2025
The government has now set out its plans to remove juries from some criminal trials in response to Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review – specifically those with a likely sentence of three years or less. Opposition has so far focused mainly on principle; trial by jury is seen by many (especially the criminal bar) as a fundamental right, a check and balance on powers of the state which dates back centuries, and one which the public has not voted for change (Crest polling in 2021 found little appetite for this, certainly).
In contrast, the government is making its case around practice; the backlog is rising and unsustainable, criminals are ‘gaming’ the system, while victims and witnesses are waiting years (or not, as the case may be) for a prosecution to come to trial. Justice Secretary David Lammy argues that his changes - which go further than those proposed by Sir Brian - are essential to prevent the current backlog of 78,000 cases topping 100,000 by 2028.
For some, the principle will always come first. But others - particularly those who rely on the courts for some measure of protection, for example victims of domestic abuse, may judge these measures more on whether they work in practice. So how certain can we be that the measures the government announced yesterday will make the courts more efficient, reduce the backlog and improve victim experience?
Barriers to productivity
Lammy has proposed new ‘Swift Courts’ in which judges alone will hear cases with a sentence of likely less than three years. This will remove offences, such as theft and some drugs possession charges, from the Crown Court caseload. In theory, this should enable the Crown Court to more quickly progress the most serious offences, including rape, serious sexual offences, murder and grievous bodily harm.
Critically, Swift Courts will require judges - but there is currently a shortage. While the number of available judges in England and Wales has increased recently, figures still fall below comparative levels from 15 years ago. There is also growing concern around retaining criminal barristers, solicitors and judges in the profession, with excessive workloads, lack of administrative support and the poor state of HMCTS buildings causing high stress.
These factors - unrelated to juries - are also reasons why cases are delayed. Last year, a quarter of Crown Court trials did not go ahead due to poor case preparation, over-listing of cases, unavailability of barristers and unsuitable HMCTS room conditions. These administrative and practical barriers fundamentally limit the productivity of criminal courts. Until these issues are resolved, it is unlikely cases will be heard significantly quicker - even without a jury.
Lammy did confirm plans to match-fund pupillages to increase the number of criminal barristers. While this is long overdue, it won’t benefit the criminal courts in the short-term. More likely to benefit criminal courts in the short term is Lammy’s commitment to increase the number of sitting days in the Crown Court. But again, until the administrative and practical barriers outlined above are addressed, this may not lead to cases being heard more quickly. The onus will be on Sir Brian to address these in part 2 of his independent review of the criminal courts due next year.
Stemming the flow
Given the focus on jury trials, it is easy to forget that Sir Brian was explicit in his review that reducing the backlog across the criminal courts was contingent on reducing the flow of cases in. But none of the reforms announced yesterday addressed this very practical point (out of court disposals, anyone?). If the bath is overflowing you can’t just pull out the plug, you need to turn off the taps too - and there is currently no sign of that happening. Indeed, other elements of the criminal justice system - notably the police and prosecutors - are being encouraged to do the opposite. Operation Soteria was rolled out across police forces in England and Wales in 2023 with the explicit aim of doubling the number of adult rape cases reaching court. That year saw the last cohort of police recruited under the Police Uplift Programme. There is evidence that as officers gain experience, their productivity - i.e. their ability to detect crimes and charge offenders - increases (chief constables will certainly hope this is the case).
It is unclear how either Swift Courts or Crown Courts will manage any increase in demand from more arrests, charges and prosecutions. If reporting of offences to be heard in Swift Courts continue to rise, such as theft, will pressure on these courts divert capacity away from Crown Courts? Will resources for Crown Courts need to be ring-fenced to prevent victims of the most serious offences waiting even longer for their cases to be heard?
Instead of creating Swift Courts, should the Deputy Prime Minister have, instead, invested in Specialist Domestic Abuse Courts? This could have led to more victims’ receiving support from Independent Domestic Violence Advisors, while their cases were heard more quickly. Perhaps that would be more effective in improving victims’ experiences and tackling the backlog.
Putting victims first
The government has leaned heavily on the impact of the backlog on victims of crime and in particular, victims of domestic abuse and rape. The figure of 6 out of 10 rape victims who withdraw their support for a prosecution doing so because of delays has been widely cited. Lammy’s commitment to invest £550 million in specialist victims’ services that offer practical and emotional support to victims and witnesses is very welcome. As the largest investment ever provided, it demonstrates a commitment to put victims first.
We know from our work for the Crown Prosecution Service that the impact of court delays on victims is severe - victims waiting on their cases to be heard have reported emotional distress, physical and mental health impacts and, in some cases, self-harm [1]. Victims are unable to move on and begin recovering from the crime while they wait for it to come to court. It is vital that victims receive more support throughout this process - the £550 million investment could make that possible for many victims. Importantly, the investment has been promised over three years, which affords support services greater stability, in turn, giving victims access to higher quality support. Certainly some charities such as Victim Support have welcomed this.
Measures were also announced to give survivors of rape a fairer trial. Previous allegations of rape made by the victim cannot be used now as evidence in favour of the defendant unless proven ‘genuinely valuable’. There is also now a higher admissibility threshold for examining the sexual history of victims. These reforms are vital in better protecting victims of rape as they face trials. Lammy was clear that he hoped fewer victims would withdraw their support for prosecution as a result. Importantly, this would improve victims’ access to justice and prevent serious perpetrators from evading punishment.
It is very possible that the investment in victim support services and measures to ensure survivors of rape experience a fairer trial will improve victim experience. But the reforms announced yesterday do not resolve barriers to productivity, nor future-proof criminal courts against increased demand.
And as a final thought, Lammy’s reforms may in time prove to be another case study for why it’s critical to take a whole system view of criminal justice; a reform in one element such as the courts can impact on others. What would it mean for prisons, if the courts are able to process more cases more quickly? Just 18 months ago, Lammy’s predecessor, Shabana Mahmood, had to take emergency action to avoid prisons and, in her view, the whole criminal justice system, collapsing under the weight of long-term overcrowding. Prison capacity has since teetered on the edge of full capacity. An uptick in perpetrators sentenced under these new reforms could leave prisons unable to cope. Where David Lammy’s reforms improve criminal courts, there could be a cost further along the criminal justice system.
